It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
but the small vocal minority voted for "change" with out asking what kind of change it was, and now we are all going to have to pay for it.
Originally posted by spaznational
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
eliminate the state’s welfare program for families, medical insurance for low-income children and Cal Grants cash assistance to college and university students.
There are MANY families which ARE WORKING yet they are still below the poverty line. Yes, there are people taking advantage of the system but many families really need this, and so do the older retired people who can't work anymore, or disabled people.
You have to be too naive to claim everyone who needs assistance is taking advantage of the system, when the truth is far from what you are trying to imply.
This also means that students won't be able to get grants. Many students work, and still need grants to be able to pay their student loans, they also want to take this away.
I feel sorry for you, and your ignorance. But keep wallowing in ignorance and keep showing that you don't have even an ounce of humanity, or compassion in you.
[edit on 23-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]
I want to know how people survived pre-welfare state. Did they just lie around and wait to die, or did they take initiative and perhaps move to other places where jobs were or perhaps take on an entrepreneurial endeavor. Maybe some of them joined the military and sent the money home to the family.
We should remember it was pre-welfare America that produced The Greatest Generation. The Great Society produced no great generations.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
My comments were not directed toward working families and people who are out here struggling. I realize that times are tough and jobs are scare. My sympathies lay solely with those who are out here trying to keep it together and scratch out a living during this mess. I am in fact ONE of those people.
My pointed comments were directed towards the professional welfare hawks, the ones who have been living and suckling off of the government teets for two and three generations long.
The ones who have never even KNOWN what it is like to have a job or to work. T
Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support
Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent
A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years ( Source snipped for space). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (space ). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.
www.apa.org...
here are people who have been exploiting our systems and fail safes for decades, having baby after unplanned baby,
Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families
Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family
The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).
IBID
Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients
Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget
Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).
IBID
collecting food stamps, welfare checks, WIC, and every other available freeby that our elected degenerates have thrown their way.
Well guess what. The tit is now dry.
There are no more free tax dollars available to give them.
The American working tax payer is just about tapped. Time to get off of their butts and fend for themselves or STARVE.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy or remorse for a segment of society who has done nothing but acted as a parasite for year after year and may now find themselves cut off.
This is what they call go time. Get up and find a way to provide for yourselves or starve. And I for one think it is a welcomed event.
To the college kid who loses funding I sympathize, to the disabled person confined at home who needs assistance to get by I humbly hope you get what is needed,
but for the lazy welfare grubbing garbage out there I say good riddance. I hope you have survival skills.
More at Link...
Is California in Need of a Bailout?
May 24, 2009
seekingalpha.com...
According to the LA Times, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed eliminating all State Welfare Programs in California. If true, the long-inevitable CA budget crisis may be starting. Citizens don't want higher taxes, politicians don't want to cut programs. We appear to be headed for more state bailouts, or social unrest as state-provided services fail.
I don't envy the Governator here. While he did preside over a 40% increase in CA's budget, all the blame does not rest with him. California's economy has been a ticking time bomb for a while. Here is the meat from a breaking article on the LA Times' website:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to completely eliminate the state’s welfare program for families, medical insurance for low-income children and Cal Grants cash assistance to college and university students.
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
My pointed comments were directed towards the professional welfare hawks, the ones who have been living and suckling off of the government teets for two and three generations long.
Originally posted by wiredamerican
The Governoator has a very hard decision on his hands right now. California is bankrupt and he is responsible for fixing it.
Stopping peoples government aid is not a popular decision, but it is a necessity in these hard times.
I actually commend Arnold Schwarzenegger for his role in fixing this predicament California is in.
He is a good leader.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by DangerDeath
I agree with your first paragraph, but your second paragraph is wrong.
The Netherlands and Britain have already de-criminalized, and it it has been shown to be effective, and Western Europe is moving towards that direction.
This is the simplest and best thing to do to not only save tax payer money, but take revenue out of the hand of criminals. Also, as an agricultural product, making canvas and diesel fuel, and cleaning up soil, a whole new industry could be created.